Climate Change Puts Buildings, Coastlines, The North At Most Risk: Report Extreme wea

[Washout]

And science should never overrule democracy. Those example you gave all involve personal choice. I can choose not to use glyphosate if I think its dangerous. I can choose not to eat GMOs and I can choose what vaccines I want to take. I cannot choose to not contribute to a carbon tax that has no real end purpose. Your pseudo science should not override my free choice.[/QUOTE]

Well said jazz

[chuckChuck]

Don't expect the flat earthers to present any actual credible science or data from practicing climate scientist to back up their opinions.

I have asked for months and nothing appears except personal political opinion, personal attacks and a tidbit of pseudo science from denial sites and activists.

The anti-science denialists have no political leaders who pay attention to their illogical fantasies.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Don't expect the flat earthers to present any actual credible science or data from practicing climate scientist to back up their opinions.

I have asked for months and nothing appears except personal political opinion, personal attacks and a tidbit of pseudo science from denial sites and activists.

The anti-science denialists have no political leaders who pay attention to their illogical fantasies.

Chuck, I've been trying for months and months to teach you how the scientific method actually works, and some very basic math skills so we can have an intellectual conversation on this issue. You stubbornly keep retreating back to consensus, and models and the views of politicians(even in the above post, you somehow conflate the opinions of political leaders with evidence), and displaying an obvious disdain for anything requiring math. It is very frustrating, but I haven't yet given up.

[flea beetle]

Don't expect the flat earthers to present any actual credible science or data from practicing climate scientist to back up their opinions.

I have asked for months and nothing appears except personal political opinion, personal attacks and a tidbit of pseudo science from denial sites and activists.

The anti-science denialists have no political leaders who pay attention to their illogical fantasies.

And you never watched the links either...

[AlbertaFarmer5]

And you never watched the links either...

Now, why would they want to do that? When they already know all there is to know, and the science is settled?

[chuckChuck]

And you never watched the links either...

Lindzen is now well retired and has settled into political activism at the CATO Institute where he takes money from the Coal industry.

https://www.desmogblog.com/richard-lindzen

Fossil Fuel Funding
As part of a March 2018 legal case between the cities of San Francisco and Oakland and fossil fuel companies, Lindzen was asked by the judge to disclose any connections he had to connected parties. [94]

In response, Lindzen reported that he had received $25,000 per year for his position at the Cato Institute since 2013. He also disclosed $1,500 from the Texas Public Policy Foundation for a “climate science lecture” in 2017, and approximately $30,000 from Peabody Coal in connection to testimony Lindzen gave at a proceeding of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commissions in September 2015. [98]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

"According to an April 30, 2012 New York Times article,[67] "Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point "nutty." He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate." He also believes that decreasing tropical cirrus clouds in a warmer world will allow more longwave radiation to escape the atmosphere, counteracting the warming.[67] Lindzen first published this "iris" theory in 2001,[9] and offered more support in a 2009 paper.[51]"

Apparently Lindzen doesn't disagree with the basic science of human caused climate change! In fact he calls people who dispute the connection between rising CO2 and warming as nutty! Yes Nutty! LOL


https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm
Climate Misinformation by Source: Richard Lindzen

Point by point in detail.

[flea beetle]

And the other scientist from BC who is in agreement with him is what?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Chuck, does the term cognitive dissonance resonates with you at all?

You and DML keep insisting that science is incorruptible and your climate scientists can't be bought and paid for. But yet, as soon as someone presents a scientist with a view that disagrees with your agenda, Instead of even attempting to refute the message, Immediately resort to claiming they are paid off, Therefore regardless of the credentials or the message it can be dismissed offhand.

[chuckChuck]

Chuck, does the term cognitive dissonance resonates with you at all?

You and DML keep insisting that science is incorruptible and your climate scientists can't be bought and paid for. But yet, as soon as someone presents a scientist with a view that disagrees with your agenda, Instead of even attempting to refute the message, Immediately resort to claiming they are paid off, Therefore regardless of the credentials or the message it can be dismissed offhand.

Lindzen calls people who dispute the connection between rising CO2 and warming as nutty!

Lindzen calls people who think like you A5 as nutty. He may disagree with some aspects or models but he does believe in the basic science which you apparently don't believe! LOL

[chuckChuck]

And the other scientist from BC who is in agreement with him is what?

A colleague? He wasn't in the video.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

"Contrary to the IPCC's assessment, Lindzen said that climate models are inadequate. Despite accepted errors in their models, e.g., treatment of clouds, modelers still thought their climate predictions were valid.[50] Lindzen has stated that due to the non-linear effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, CO2 levels are now around 30% higher than pre-industrial levels but temperatures have responded by about 75% 0.6 °C (1.08 °F) of the expected value for a doubling of CO2. The IPCC (2007) estimates that the expected rise in temperature due to a doubling of CO2 to be about 3 °C (5.4 °F), ± 1.5°. Lindzen has given estimates of the Earth's climate sensitivity to be 0.5 °C based on ERBE data.[51] These estimates were criticized by Kevin E. Trenberth and others,[52] and Lindzen accepted that his paper included "some stupid mistakes". When interviewed, he said "It was just embarrassing", and added that "The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque." Lindzen and Choi revised their paper and submitted it to PNAS.[53] The four reviewers of the paper, two of whom had been selected by Lindzen, strongly criticized the paper and PNAS rejected it for publication.[54] Lindzen and Choi then succeeded in getting a little known Korean journal to publish it as a 2011 paper.[53][55] Andrew Dessler published a paper which found errors in Lindzen and Choi 2011, and concluded that the observations it had presented "are not in fundamental disagreement with mainstream climate models, nor do they provide evidence that clouds are causing climate change. Suggestions that significant revisions to mainstream climate science are required are therefore not supported."[56]

[jazz]

Whats up with sea ice chuck? Please square that with the models.

Little foxy ran from Norway to Canada on ice pack during the summer solstice.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Lindzen calls people who dispute the connection between rising CO2 and warming as nutty!

Lindzen calls people who think like you A5 as nutty. He may disagree with some aspects or models but he does believe in the basic science which you apparently don't believe! LOL

You can be very frustrating student. You are back to using the word belief in regards to science. I thought We had that issue settled by now, yet You think you are ready to have an adult discussion on the topic? Leave The believing to the religious fanatics please, not the scientists.

If you bothered to read anything I post, including further up in this thread, I gratefully acknowledge CO2 as a greenhouse gas, And readily point out the benefits humanity has received from warming, regardless of which Portion of that warming can be attributed to human versus natural causes.

You guys keep missing is that the Relationship between CO2 concentrations and temperature is not Linear. At These high levels we are basically wasting most of this precious CO2 for progressively less additional temperature benefits

[flea beetle]

A colleague? He wasn't in the video.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

"Contrary to the IPCC's assessment, Lindzen said that climate models are inadequate. Despite accepted errors in their models, e.g., treatment of clouds, modelers still thought their climate predictions were valid.[50] Lindzen has stated that due to the non-linear effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, CO2 levels are now around 30% higher than pre-industrial levels but temperatures have responded by about 75% 0.6 °C (1.08 °F) of the expected value for a doubling of CO2. The IPCC (2007) estimates that the expected rise in temperature due to a doubling of CO2 to be about 3 °C (5.4 °F), ± 1.5°. Lindzen has given estimates of the Earth's climate sensitivity to be 0.5 °C based on ERBE data.[51] These estimates were criticized by Kevin E. Trenberth and others,[52] and Lindzen accepted that his paper included "some stupid mistakes". When interviewed, he said "It was just embarrassing", and added that "The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque." Lindzen and Choi revised their paper and submitted it to PNAS.[53] The four reviewers of the paper, two of whom had been selected by Lindzen, strongly criticized the paper and PNAS rejected it for publication.[54] Lindzen and Choi then succeeded in getting a little known Korean journal to publish it as a 2011 paper.[53][55] Andrew Dessler published a paper which found errors in Lindzen and Choi 2011, and concluded that the observations it had presented "are not in fundamental disagreement with mainstream climate models, nor do they provide evidence that clouds are causing climate change. Suggestions that significant revisions to mainstream climate science are required are therefore not supported."[56]

Thanks for confirming that you never watched the links. Plural. More than one.

[dmlfarmer]

Whats up with sea ice chuck? Please square that with the models.

Little foxy ran from Norway to Canada on ice pack during the summer solstice.

Jazz, just wondering if you ever fact check things you post or if you are intentionally trying to mislead this forum?

Agrivillers, Jazz is right that a fox travelled from Norway to Canada, however not from continental Norway as he wants you to believe, but from Spitzsbergen in the Svalbard archipelago (Norwegian territory) which for those who does not know is roughly 1100 kms north west of the northern most point of continental Norway and is in fact only about 600 kms east of the north tip of Greenland.

Yes, it did travel on sea ice but not all the way to Canada, but only to Greenland and this travel across sea ice did not take place over the summer solstice but the fox left the Spitzsbergen on March 26, 2018 and arrived in Greenland on April 16th, 2018 long before summer arrived in the area and around the time when sea ice is thickest. In fact ice is thick enough than boats do not travel that far north at that time of the year. The fox crossed Greenland until June 6, 2018 before the short crossing over solid ice to Elsmere Island in the far north of Canada on June 10th, 2018, 12 days before the Solstice.

No question this was a remarkable journey, but it has nothing to do with climate change, or changes in sea ice. There is sea ice every spring around Svalbard archipelago. Foxes have made the same journey in the past, just this time the fox was wearing a tracking collar so we no the route and times that is detailed, with maps, in the link below.

Another example of Jazz sharing unsourced information to mislead Agrivillers!

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/02/fantastic-arctic-fox-animal-walks-3500km-from-norway-to-canada https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/02/fantastic-arctic-fox-animal-walks-3500km-from-norway-to-canada

[dmlfarmer]

...and the 30% increase in Arctic ice.

And science should never overrule democracy. Those example you gave all involve personal choice. I can choose not to use glyphosate if I think its dangerous. I can choose not to eat GMOs and I can choose what vaccines I want to take. I cannot choose to not contribute to a carbon tax that has no real end purpose. Your pseudo science should not override my free choice.

Please provide your source for your claim of a 30% increase in Arctic ice. And is 30% increase covers what area of the area and what is the time period that the claimed increase is over.

Second Jazz, How is Science overruling democracy? Please explain.

I also disagree with your assessment of personal choice. If a democratic elected government says farmers can no longer use glyphosate for preharvest, then I do not have a choice to use it preharvest.

When the governments of Europe ended import of GMO canola, as a farmer I do not have a choice of selling RR canola to that market. Science says GMO canola is safe, yet democracy says we don't want it and I do not have a choice to sell it.

If people choose not to vaccinate, my taxes are still used to treat these people or their kids when they come down with a preventable disease. I have no choice but my taxes are still used for non vaccinated People's health care. In all three cases, science has deemed something safe, but democracy has taken away a choice for me. Maybe democracy is over ruling science!

But if you are right, science should never overrule democracy, please note that recent polls show more Canadians believe climate change is human caused than those who deny it. So you should be agreeing with climate change and the carbon tax just on democratic principles regardless of the findings of your pseudo science

Key findings Abacus Data poll of Canadians Feb 2018:
...Most Canadians believe climate change is happening, is caused by human behavior...
60% want governments to take more action to combat climate change...

https://ecofiscal.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Ecosfiscal_Polling_February2018_FINAL_RELEASE.pdf https://ecofiscal.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Ecosfiscal_Polling_February2018_FINAL_RELEASE.pdf

Nov 2018 Angus Reid poll
66% of Canadians feel Climate change is a fact and is mostly caused by emissions from vehicles and industrial facilities

https://www.citynews1130.com/2018/11/30/poll-canadians-climate-change/ https://www.citynews1130.com/2018/11/30/poll-canadians-climate-change/

March 17, 2019 Abacus Data:
• A total of 83% of Canadians say they are quite (26%), very (30%) or extremely (27%) concerned about climate change. Only 18% say they are not all that (12%) or not concerned (6%).

https://abacusdata.ca/will-climate-change-be-a-ballot-box-question-in-2019/ https://abacusdata.ca/will-climate-change-be-a-ballot-box-question-in-2019/